Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It doesn't matter if you ask the question again or not. You have already received the legally accurate answer.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Any chance I can get florida.arrests.org to take down a mugshot of me?
- Thread starter KTTNMD
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
Although there is undoubtedly useful, legal-related information, I recognize any feedback I receive could be opinion loosely-based on legal fact, as anyone can post on this forum.
Might I remind you the first reply I received indicated there is a possibility of court intervention, contrary to subsequent feedback. Which is it? I would think someone qualified to give legal advice would be more careful with their words, if there is no possibility of court intervention.
It was made clear defamation-related laws do not apply, but it was not clear whether there are other laws that may come into play.
I still welcome any further feedback.
...and yes, I know you [Zigner] think the answer is no.
Thank you.
quincy
Senior Member
Booking photos (mug shots) are used by law enforcement to aid in their investigations. These photos are, for the most part, accessible to the public as part of a public record and these photos are considered public domain material. There are few exceptions (ie. sealed records, ongoing investigation restrictions).
However, most media organizations will not use mug shots when illustrating a story unless or until the person photographed has been convicted of the crime for which he has been arrested. This is for several reasons. One reason is that a person who has been arrested for a crime may have been arrested in error or the arrest may never result in charges or a conviction. To publish a mug shot when there has been no conviction could potentially lead to a defamation action or an invasion of privacy/false light action against the publisher.
Studies have shown that mug shots imply guilt. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that a mug shot infers a criminal history and, therefore, a jury may infer guilt if they view a defendant's mug shot. Many courts in many states will instruct their attorneys not to use mug shots in court (or, if used, they should refrain from referring to them as mug shots).
In June, 1994, both Newsweek magazine and Time magazine chose O.J. Simpson's mug shot to illustrate their covers. Newsweek used the photograph as it was taken. Time magazine, however, hired a photo-illustrator to alter Simpson's mug shot photo, changing the background lighting and darkening Simpson's image.
Although Time editors claimed the image was darkened to convey that a "shadow" had fallen over the sport star's reputation, others viewed the darkening of O.J.'s face as racism. It was almost indisputable that the darkened image made Simpson appear more "menacing." What Time magazine did with the mug shot image was not illegal so much as it was unethical. Altering news photos is not something journalists should do. Time magazine noted the public's reaction to the cover and quickly removed the questionable issues from the news stands. The magazine replaced the cover mug shot photograph with another, more benign, photograph of Simpson.
Had you not been convicted of the misdemeanor under which you were arrested and charged, KTTNMD, you may have had some sort of legal action to consider against the arrest records website. As it stands, there is little you can do legally to have your mug shot removed from the website where it appears - and this would be the case, generally, whether the photograph has been altered or not. It could depend, I suppose, on how exactly the photo was altered.
Although you can certainly review the website and the facts of your situation with an attorney in your area, to get another opinion, I think your best (and perhaps only) action is the one you have already taken - request of the site that the mug shot be removed. As Proserpina said, it will not hurt to ask.
However, most media organizations will not use mug shots when illustrating a story unless or until the person photographed has been convicted of the crime for which he has been arrested. This is for several reasons. One reason is that a person who has been arrested for a crime may have been arrested in error or the arrest may never result in charges or a conviction. To publish a mug shot when there has been no conviction could potentially lead to a defamation action or an invasion of privacy/false light action against the publisher.
Studies have shown that mug shots imply guilt. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that a mug shot infers a criminal history and, therefore, a jury may infer guilt if they view a defendant's mug shot. Many courts in many states will instruct their attorneys not to use mug shots in court (or, if used, they should refrain from referring to them as mug shots).
In June, 1994, both Newsweek magazine and Time magazine chose O.J. Simpson's mug shot to illustrate their covers. Newsweek used the photograph as it was taken. Time magazine, however, hired a photo-illustrator to alter Simpson's mug shot photo, changing the background lighting and darkening Simpson's image.
Although Time editors claimed the image was darkened to convey that a "shadow" had fallen over the sport star's reputation, others viewed the darkening of O.J.'s face as racism. It was almost indisputable that the darkened image made Simpson appear more "menacing." What Time magazine did with the mug shot image was not illegal so much as it was unethical. Altering news photos is not something journalists should do. Time magazine noted the public's reaction to the cover and quickly removed the questionable issues from the news stands. The magazine replaced the cover mug shot photograph with another, more benign, photograph of Simpson.
Had you not been convicted of the misdemeanor under which you were arrested and charged, KTTNMD, you may have had some sort of legal action to consider against the arrest records website. As it stands, there is little you can do legally to have your mug shot removed from the website where it appears - and this would be the case, generally, whether the photograph has been altered or not. It could depend, I suppose, on how exactly the photo was altered.
Although you can certainly review the website and the facts of your situation with an attorney in your area, to get another opinion, I think your best (and perhaps only) action is the one you have already taken - request of the site that the mug shot be removed. As Proserpina said, it will not hurt to ask.
Last edited:
In a similar boat
I discovered my mugshot on the same site today. The difference in my situation is that I was never convicted. All charges were dropped by the district attorney when the arresting officer could produce no evidence of the violation. (I passed the breath test 3 times). All records were expunged by the judge. Now, 8 years later, this pops up. What is my recourse?
I discovered my mugshot on the same site today. The difference in my situation is that I was never convicted. All charges were dropped by the district attorney when the arresting officer could produce no evidence of the violation. (I passed the breath test 3 times). All records were expunged by the judge. Now, 8 years later, this pops up. What is my recourse?
spookychief
Junior Member
What if they are?
I am currently attempting the same thing for my wife, she was charged with Battery/DomV however when we went before the judge and he asked me if she had in fact done anything i said no and the officers had been fishing and she never said anything to allude that there had been any physical contact. The judge immediatley said this was a waste of the courts time and dropped all charges.However her mugshot and all are up on the arrests.org website as well. She has a business website and when people search for her that link ends up right under her business site im sure detracting potential customers. Not to mention that the site also lets you rate these people as Hot, WTF, Tattooed, Beaten etc, and has links to the persons facebook and myspace pages. They have a disclaimer that says it cannot be used as criminal record and can not be proven if the individual was charged. Any Help??
spookychief
Junior Member
Florida
Yes sir been in florida 4 years and this took place in July of 08
Yes sir been in florida 4 years and this took place in July of 08
>Charlotte<
Lurker
Links to commercial sites are not allowed on this forum.
I am currently a student in Louisiana, but also a resident of Florida.
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">